ICI is deploying a few 11ghz mimosa links for a radio station. On the flip side, Cambium scratched my back and gave us a nice price deal on the 820 gear in order to remain an all Cambium network. ( well we do have one airfiber 24 )
We will start deploying all the links in just a couple weeks. I am certainly curious to see how the two products perform during testing. However, I fully expect the cambium product to work much better. If not I'll let the world know. Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.net Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers! > On Apr 19, 2016, at 3:29 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mimosa now is in the hungry market position ubnt was in at early 2010. > >> On Apr 19, 2016 7:09 AM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Let's not forget that at the Ubiquiti show last October, Robert had no >> intentions of making anything licensed or in the higher (60, 80, etc.) >> bands. Later that week, Mimosa announces the B11. Now we get an AF11x. >> >> Reactive, not proactive... or even responding to customer requests (in >> something measured in less than years). >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> >> The Brothers WISP >> >> >> >> >> From: "Gino Villarini" <[email protected]> >> To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:19:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration >> >> I beg to differ with you Faisal on the Mimosa statement. the B11 only >> achievement is low cost, which is soon to be out priced by UBNT AF11. B11 >> are inefficient Spectrum hogs >> >> >>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Erich Kaiser <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Also max QAM level on B11 is 256 on the PTP820S it is 2048. >>> >>> >>> Erich Kaiser >>> North Central Tower >>> [email protected] >>> Office: 630-621-4804 >>> Cell: 630-777-9291 >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Erich Kaiser >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> You actually need double the spectrum to accomplish the same thing as the >>>> 2+0 config on PTP820S vs B11. The B11 is using both H and V PTP820S with >>>> 2+0 could both be on Vertical or on Horizontal. This is one of the big >>>> issues people have been running into is being able to find that type of >>>> spectrum. >>>> >>>> >>>> Erich Kaiser >>>> North Central Tower >>>> [email protected] >>>> Office: 630-621-4804 >>>> Cell: 630-777-9291 >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. However >>>>> I would make a general statement .. >>>>> >>>>> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there >>>>> may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry >>>>> tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of >>>>> correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best >>>>> or the worst of such examples. >>>>> >>>>> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the >>>>> link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at >>>>> what Mimosa B11's can do with them.... and yes these folks did challenge >>>>> the accepted status quo in licensed links.. >>>>> >>>>> Regards/ >>>>> >>>>> Faisal Imtiaz >>>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>>>> 7266 SW 48 Street >>>>> Miami, FL 33155 >>>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>>>> >>>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> > From: "Craig Baird" <[email protected]> >>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM >>>>> > Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration >>>>> >>>>> > So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link. We >>>>> > recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a >>>>> > little bit of frame loss that we are investigating. While looking >>>>> > into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns >>>>> > me. On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when >>>>> > dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band. >>>>> > There is no explanation of why this is the case. In our situation, >>>>> > the radios are in separate sub-bands. When we did the frequency >>>>> > coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different >>>>> > sub-bands. I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked >>>>> > with Cambium to get a BOM. At no point did anyone say that this was a >>>>> > problem. So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this >>>>> > post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be. Both links >>>>> > are up and running. Signal on both is right where it should be (-39 >>>>> > on one, -40 on the other). Both are running at maximum modulation. >>>>> > There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces. There is >>>>> > no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside >>>>> > from possibly this frame loss thing. However, if I mute the radios on >>>>> > one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related. >>>>> > >>>>> > In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized. On one >>>>> > side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios. On the >>>>> > other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish. >>>>> > >>>>> > So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use >>>>> > radios from different sub-bands. Are we in for trouble at some point? >>>>> > >>>>> > Craig
